Stunned. Sick. Gutted.
A million and one words to describe how I'm feeling following the result last night. Things had looked positive for a while, especially in the Easterhouse section of the constituency where I was working from, but in the end it wasn't enough. The SNP's mammoth effort (they put out more activists and I presume spent more money than we did) was successful and John Mason, widely described by the commentators as the least impressive of the candidates of the by-election, will be serving the people of Glasgow East at least until the next General Election.
I think the first point that has to be made is that Labour activists put in a fantastic effort. As I mentioned in previous blogs, I have been blown away by the commitment and dedication that I have been lucky enough to witness. Activists have come in from across the country and belied the supposed death of our Party. Sadly, it wasn't enough but that doesn't detract from the great work which was done. We need to try and sustain this energy into other constituencies - there are no more safe seats for us.
So why did we lose? Ultimately, it seems that the more affluent areas of the constituency such as Mount Vernon turned out in good numbers and voted SNP, whilst the areas where we had support didn't turn out so well. The drop in our support was not enough to allow the SNp to win (I think) so the impact of tactical voting helped deliver it for them as well. The Lib Dems experienced a big squeeze - I would guess their protest votes they've picked up before transferred to the Nats. I had expected more Tories to vote tactically, but in the end they only lost 1% of the vote share. I think that because they ran a high profile campaign their support, limited in number though it may be, continued to vote for them allowing them a successful third place, exactly what Cameron was looking for.
All in all, exactly the results we did not want.
We are hearing a lot about the reasons behind the loss, with the London commentariat in particular billing it as a referendum on Gordon Brown - indeed Cameron is now calling for an election on the basis of the the 3 by-elections. However, I don't think that this is necessarily true, and reflects the London bias which clouds the judgement of most commentators who find it hard to accept that the rest of the country might be different. People are disappointed with the Government, and indeed the Party (which is the more important bit), but I don't think they viewed this election as a way to get rid of Gordon. Rather, it is a reflection and reminder, and god forbid we needed one, that the SNP are viewed as a serious party who people will entrust to represent them.
For this wasn't a reflection on support for independence - in fact, the SNP's success has been rooted in convincing people that you can vote for them and oppose independence. They have done nothing of real note in their first year of government in Scotland, but because of this they have done nothing to really annoy people, certainly in Glasgow. Becuase the city still has a very efficient Labour majority council, we have not been hit by the SNP-inspired cuts to services which have savaged other parts of the country - the actions of our council have shielded people, a fantastic reflection on Stephen Purcell's team. The SNP talk centre-left even whilst delivering centre-right - unfortunately many people take the information at face value, so if the SNP bill themselves as more Labour than Labour, then they must be.
Central to the SNP's ongoing success is Alex Salmond. Now personally I believe that he is one of the most arrogant, smug creatures to have ever crawled out from under a rock, but the truth is that in Scotland he appears head and shoulders above the rest of our politicians - this includes the entireity of his own party as well. Eventually his arrogance will be his undoing (believe me, that smug smirk that plasters his face will be less appealing when the Nats are under pressure) but in the meantime he is master of all he surveys. Mason was kept out of the spotlight as much as possible, and when he was seen it was invariably with Salmond holding his leash - if you like, he is the Bojo of the SNP. His brief forays into the media beam were spectacular in their incompetence - either in making comments which contradicted the SNP line and demonstrated his hardline fanaticism, or in his inept TV displays in the debates prior to the election. But it didn't matter. His own personal support as a councillor (he received the highest number of first preference votes in the whole of Glasgow) coupled with Salmond's efforts ensured his success.
Margaret Curran was an excellent Labour candidate, and indeed probably brought the result far closer than anyone else would have done. She made a big sacrifice to run for this election - I think she would have become the leader of the Labour group at Holyrood, and indeed we are poorer as a Party if we do not, as would seem likely, have her as our leader in Scotland. She worked hard and is very popular with constituents - in the end, the Party's current travails were just too much to overcome. She will continue to be a wonderful representative for her constituents in Holyrood.
So where now? Well, we have the joys of a council by-election in Ballieston to now look forward to. On a national level, we are definitely in a serious hole just now. Nothing is going our way, and I think we have to hope for a very quiet summer to give ourselves some time to recuperate. We have lost the trust and connection we had with much of the electorate, and need to address this. We talk about listening, but it has to be more than that - it has to be action, but action for a purpose rather than as a kneejerk reaction to media headlines. We have to remember that the SNP have had spectacular by-election results in Glasgow before, and in both cases lost Govan back to us in the subsequent General Election. People were protesting, and choose the best placed party to do so - just as they did with the Tories in Crewe and Nantwich.
We have to recognise that the SNP are the dominant party in Scotland just now. We have been portrayed as being complacent about our support in Glasgow and the West of Scotland, and rightly or wrongly, this has stuck in the public's imagination. The SNP have nothing of substance to offer, but they can play on grievance to great success - afterall, the politics of grievance is their very reason for existance.
We need to take the fight to them. They have dominated the political discourse since the election in 2007, aided by our own turmoil. Essentially we have made it easy for them. We need to listen, but we need to demonstrate that we are dedicated and energised as a Party now as we were in 1997. I witnessed the dynamism of our Party in action over the past couple of weeks, and we now need to harness this.
Stephen Purcell talked on Newsnight last night about the need to refind the dynamism which we possessed in 97 - I like to think he stole the idea from my radical centre blog! =) For me, it is the crucial drive for us. We look tired and stale, devoid of ideas or direction. This isn't a true reflection of our Party - look at the vibrant discourse on here - but it is what the public is told through the media.
I talked about this by-election being a chance to draw a line in the sand. We've lost, and we have been pushed back past that line, with defeat in the next General Election certainly in the likely column. But we can't give up and concede it to the Tories. A Conservative Government in Westminster alongside a SNP Government in Holyrood will signal the end of the Union and a disaster for the people of the UK. We have a responsibility to put up one heck of a fight, to argue our case and defend the people we represent. Despite Cameron's political games with the UUP, we are the party of the Union, and the only party who genuinely try to represent all of the citizens of the UK, rather than just a selct few.
I've been fired up by this election, and I refuse to let the SNP's victory drag me down. If it's a fight they want, then its a fight they will blooming well get. And with hard work, we'll see a Labour MP returned for Glasgow East at the next General Election and a Labour Government continuing to work for the good of the UK.
As the old phrase says, it's always darkest just before dawn - lets make sure that sunrise starts now.
Friday, July 25, 2008
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Broken Society? Immigration
Following on from my last article, I thought I would jot down some ideas about another one of the Tories' favourite scare stories - immigration.
If you listen to the media and the Tories, Britain is (to use Thatcher's infamous quote) being swamped by immigrants. Our way of life is being destroyed, extremism is being fostered and our language crushed underneath a mound of 'alien' tongues. Since we have such a PC (the most dreaded insult the Mail can use) Government, none of this is fought against - indeed, Brown et al are encouraging the tide, keen through liberal self-loathing to see the end of Britain and the rise of Londonistan.
Absolute rubbish.
Anyway, now that I feel that I've stated the obvious in response to the fears, it's important to sit back and actually analyse the situation. As with crime, there is a lot of 'fear' about immigration - most of it is not necessarily based on reality, but that doesn't make it any less real for the public concerned, or any less important for politicians to take seriously.
The first thing that we have to do, and I cannot emphasise this enough, is restore the clear distinction between asylum seekers/refugees and economic migrants. Sadly, the media has used asylum seeker as shorthand for all their attacks on immigrants - descriptions of spongers, scroungers and criminals are repeated ad nauseum and have become associated with the term. Of course, the reality is that refugees and asylum seekers are defined legal terms which we, as a nation, have legal obligations in regards to. We receive very few asylum seekers and refugees - the vast majority end up in countries neighbouring the one that they have fled from - but we have international obligations to support those who seek asylum and ensure that they are protected. It is a travesty that asylum seekers are not able to work - by paying tax and earning for themselves they would contribute far more money to the Exchequer than any small measure that Liam Byrne is suggesting, along with aiding the process of integration. In addition, it would benefit the UK by capitalising upon skills and talents which are currently going to waste, allowing them to contribute to the economy at a time of downturn. However, to be able to promote this approach will require the attitudes of people to be changed - the Government can do this, but it first has to actively decide that it will promote the benefits that immigrants (both Asylum seeker/refugee and economic) bring to the nation.
In regards to economic migrants, who are a different issue for discussion, we need to open up the arena for debate. Currently, immigration is a non-debatable issue, as it is quickly stolen by extremists for their own ends. Nobody wants to get into a debate and find that they are being tarred by association with the BNP or their ilk, but if no debate is held then the lies of the BNP are given dark places to flourish. Like much fear, the fear of immigration is best countered by open discussion and exploration, by acknowledging the feelings which have legitimate roots and challenging those which have darker motives behind them. There are areas of the UK which have witnessed great changes in terms of the diversity of their population, and people do feat that which is different. Part of the problem is that these changes are often in areas which are already encountering social deprivation - diversity and immigration are therefore seen as additional strains on the system rather than possible contributions.
If we do not work on the tensions which already exist in communities, then we should not be surprised that immigration will further heighten them. We have a remnant of a working class which feels that Labour has abandoned it and nobody else is interested - apart from the BNP, who talk 'Old Labour' economics with the easy balm of providing someone to blame for everything thrown in for good measure. The lure of a scapegoat is a powerful one, particularly for people who feel disempowered in their own lives, and is a large part of the growth of the far-right in recent years. Therefore, it is vital that we ensure that we are improving life for both established and recently arrived communities. This requires publicising improvements that are made for communities, demonstrating falls in the crime rate (such as is being reported today) and listening to the concerns of those who feel alienated from society.
I think that the learning of English for immigrants is an important aspect of this. Britain has long been the subject of immigration (both military based and otherwise) and has benefited from this. Our history is one of evolution, with influences from the Continent (from Romans to Vikings to Normans to the Dutch) impacting on our development alongside the later influence of immigration from the Empire. So much of British culture has its roots elsewhere in the world, but has arrived on our shores and been developed into something unique. Therefore the different languages that come to the UK are to be welcomed and encouraged, allowing immigrants to retain the roots of their native country and to add to our own cultural mix. However, a shared language is a vital component of social interaction and community building - it empowers immigrants to contribute to society economically, socially and culturally and allows established communities to interact equally with all those around. I believe that we should increase the provision of ESOL classes to ensure that everyone has access to English classes. The Government has talked about immigrants forming a social contract with the UK when they choose to come here, and part of this should be the commitment to utilise resources for learning English - the Government would at the same time commit to providing widespread and free access. Who knows, it might prove popular with some 'Brits' too!
In terms of a contract with the UK relating to acceptance of certain cultural stipulations, I am sceptical of this. For people who have been British citizens their whole life there is widespread disagreement over what constitutes Britishness - think about topics such as the Monarchy or the future of the Union for obvious ones. We should certainly acknowledge that immigrants who choose to complete the citizenship requirements will be better qualified and knowledgeable about being British than most of us - a reflection on how much we take for granted and a sign that more education is required to increase knowledge amongst those born British.
I believe that immigration provides an important contribution and resource to this country, but I do also realise that it is an argument that still needs to be won with the British public. Papers such as the Mail pick on the extreme cases to tar all immigrants or those they define as not being truly British, such as when some Muslims object to pig-related material etc. Our shame as a Government is that we do not do enough to counter these claims, instead lowering ourselves to their level with our 'tough' stance on immigration. Locking asylum seekers up in camps is barbaric, and a disgrace to our nation, and provides fuel to the BNP.
Immigration is an opportunity, we need to make sure that we utilise it. Britain is not a fixed concept, it is an evolution and each generation contributes to that. But we should recognise that there are areas which require continued investment to improve them for those who live there already. By creating and sustaining these communities, Britain will continue to be a country that people want to live in and Britishness a state that others wish to attain.
If you listen to the media and the Tories, Britain is (to use Thatcher's infamous quote) being swamped by immigrants. Our way of life is being destroyed, extremism is being fostered and our language crushed underneath a mound of 'alien' tongues. Since we have such a PC (the most dreaded insult the Mail can use) Government, none of this is fought against - indeed, Brown et al are encouraging the tide, keen through liberal self-loathing to see the end of Britain and the rise of Londonistan.
Absolute rubbish.
Anyway, now that I feel that I've stated the obvious in response to the fears, it's important to sit back and actually analyse the situation. As with crime, there is a lot of 'fear' about immigration - most of it is not necessarily based on reality, but that doesn't make it any less real for the public concerned, or any less important for politicians to take seriously.
The first thing that we have to do, and I cannot emphasise this enough, is restore the clear distinction between asylum seekers/refugees and economic migrants. Sadly, the media has used asylum seeker as shorthand for all their attacks on immigrants - descriptions of spongers, scroungers and criminals are repeated ad nauseum and have become associated with the term. Of course, the reality is that refugees and asylum seekers are defined legal terms which we, as a nation, have legal obligations in regards to. We receive very few asylum seekers and refugees - the vast majority end up in countries neighbouring the one that they have fled from - but we have international obligations to support those who seek asylum and ensure that they are protected. It is a travesty that asylum seekers are not able to work - by paying tax and earning for themselves they would contribute far more money to the Exchequer than any small measure that Liam Byrne is suggesting, along with aiding the process of integration. In addition, it would benefit the UK by capitalising upon skills and talents which are currently going to waste, allowing them to contribute to the economy at a time of downturn. However, to be able to promote this approach will require the attitudes of people to be changed - the Government can do this, but it first has to actively decide that it will promote the benefits that immigrants (both Asylum seeker/refugee and economic) bring to the nation.
In regards to economic migrants, who are a different issue for discussion, we need to open up the arena for debate. Currently, immigration is a non-debatable issue, as it is quickly stolen by extremists for their own ends. Nobody wants to get into a debate and find that they are being tarred by association with the BNP or their ilk, but if no debate is held then the lies of the BNP are given dark places to flourish. Like much fear, the fear of immigration is best countered by open discussion and exploration, by acknowledging the feelings which have legitimate roots and challenging those which have darker motives behind them. There are areas of the UK which have witnessed great changes in terms of the diversity of their population, and people do feat that which is different. Part of the problem is that these changes are often in areas which are already encountering social deprivation - diversity and immigration are therefore seen as additional strains on the system rather than possible contributions.
If we do not work on the tensions which already exist in communities, then we should not be surprised that immigration will further heighten them. We have a remnant of a working class which feels that Labour has abandoned it and nobody else is interested - apart from the BNP, who talk 'Old Labour' economics with the easy balm of providing someone to blame for everything thrown in for good measure. The lure of a scapegoat is a powerful one, particularly for people who feel disempowered in their own lives, and is a large part of the growth of the far-right in recent years. Therefore, it is vital that we ensure that we are improving life for both established and recently arrived communities. This requires publicising improvements that are made for communities, demonstrating falls in the crime rate (such as is being reported today) and listening to the concerns of those who feel alienated from society.
I think that the learning of English for immigrants is an important aspect of this. Britain has long been the subject of immigration (both military based and otherwise) and has benefited from this. Our history is one of evolution, with influences from the Continent (from Romans to Vikings to Normans to the Dutch) impacting on our development alongside the later influence of immigration from the Empire. So much of British culture has its roots elsewhere in the world, but has arrived on our shores and been developed into something unique. Therefore the different languages that come to the UK are to be welcomed and encouraged, allowing immigrants to retain the roots of their native country and to add to our own cultural mix. However, a shared language is a vital component of social interaction and community building - it empowers immigrants to contribute to society economically, socially and culturally and allows established communities to interact equally with all those around. I believe that we should increase the provision of ESOL classes to ensure that everyone has access to English classes. The Government has talked about immigrants forming a social contract with the UK when they choose to come here, and part of this should be the commitment to utilise resources for learning English - the Government would at the same time commit to providing widespread and free access. Who knows, it might prove popular with some 'Brits' too!
In terms of a contract with the UK relating to acceptance of certain cultural stipulations, I am sceptical of this. For people who have been British citizens their whole life there is widespread disagreement over what constitutes Britishness - think about topics such as the Monarchy or the future of the Union for obvious ones. We should certainly acknowledge that immigrants who choose to complete the citizenship requirements will be better qualified and knowledgeable about being British than most of us - a reflection on how much we take for granted and a sign that more education is required to increase knowledge amongst those born British.
I believe that immigration provides an important contribution and resource to this country, but I do also realise that it is an argument that still needs to be won with the British public. Papers such as the Mail pick on the extreme cases to tar all immigrants or those they define as not being truly British, such as when some Muslims object to pig-related material etc. Our shame as a Government is that we do not do enough to counter these claims, instead lowering ourselves to their level with our 'tough' stance on immigration. Locking asylum seekers up in camps is barbaric, and a disgrace to our nation, and provides fuel to the BNP.
Immigration is an opportunity, we need to make sure that we utilise it. Britain is not a fixed concept, it is an evolution and each generation contributes to that. But we should recognise that there are areas which require continued investment to improve them for those who live there already. By creating and sustaining these communities, Britain will continue to be a country that people want to live in and Britishness a state that others wish to attain.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Broken Society? Crime
One of the recurring motifs for the Conservatives since the ascent of Cameron has been Britain's Broken Society - the theme that crime is rampant, social ties have vanished and immigration is running roughshod over what it is to be British. It is clever targetting of the base fears of our citizens, good politicking for an Opposition party short on ideas but big on ambition, and, combined with the negativity pouring unchecked for the media, is causing the very problems in society which it is claiming to identify.
We therefore want nothing to do with it as a Party. However, there are elements underlying some of the issues and fears which people have which do require action and which we can make positive changes to. I am going to try and explore some of these in a series of blogs, starting with crime. It is just thoughts on specific areas of each issue, but hopefully might provoke debate.
It is hard to not be influenced by the stories which we see reported in the media. The series of tragic murders in London and elsewhere have been hugely emotive. The thought that young people are being killed, often by accident or chance, is one that points strongly to serious problems within elements of our society. Glasgow may not have as many murders, but we have the joint highest incidence of knife crime in the world per head of population. London feels that it is in the midst of an epidemic of knife-related murders and other urban areas also fear the influence of knives in their communities. General public opinion reflects a fear of crime, particularly serious crime, even if the actual reality is that they are unlikely to come into contact with it. There is a widespread demonisation of young people, with the inevitable generational rift that follows on from this.
I believe that within this context, the Broken Windows theory of James Wilson and George Kelling deserves a serious look (available at http://www.manhattan-institute.org/pdf/_atlantic_monthly-broken_windows.pdf). Essentially, their theory holds that fear of crime is often linked to a causal process, starting with issues as simple as windows in a building being broken. If the windows are not fixed, then an impression is created that breaking them will not lead to any repercussions, and more will be broken. Over time, this can lead on to other crime being more common, as an environment is created without social responsibility. Although it is not inevitable that serious crime will flourish, the perception of those living in the community (and indeed it can progress to the stage where there ceases to be a true community) will be that there are not boundaries or rules, with a resultant lowering in their own feelings of safety.
This is, for me, a fascinating concept, as it is really rooted in psychology and emotional effects - working on how people feel and think about where they live, work or commute. There is a benefit to increasing the feelings of safety that people have, even if it doesn't appear to be directly related to the realities on the ground. This is reflected in the insecure feelings which are reported in the UK just now - although most people do not come into contact with crime or disorderly behaviour, they feel insecure and worried that they will be affected by it.
One of the obvious measures which can be introduced in relation to this is putting police on the beat. Now, most studies have shown that foot patrols do not lead to a demonstrable reduction in the crime rate, and therefore they have been reduced in numbers. However, what they do do is increase the feeling of security in a community, and increase the connection and interaction between the police and the community. The Police Force exists to serve our communities, but nowadays it is very detached from those they serve. It is not to hark back to an idyllic past which never existed, but there is certainly a difference between having a Police Force which is only seen at moments of crisis and one which is a welcome and visible presence in a community. Community involvement on the behalf of the police has to be more than just visiting schools or directly responding to criminal behaviour when it has reached breaking point.
Tony Blair famously declared that the Labour Party would be tough on crime and on the causes of crime, but I think we have not followed through on this clearly enough. There still seems to be a feeling that law and order is a right wing issue, and that only conservatives discuss society and its ills. This is a failure on our part, and presents an open goal for the Conservatives. To highlight this, we can take the example of New York.
NY is one of the most Democratic cities in the US - Republicans are heavily outnumbered in terms of voters and representatives. However, the most successful Mayor of New York in recent years has been Rudy Giuliani. When he became Mayor in 1994, he took over the running of a city which was viewed as out of control and offputting to tourists and residents alike. But crucially, it was also felt that this was the inevitable result of urban decay and nothing could be done to change it. Giuliani took the Broken Windows theory as his inspirition and, combined with the introduction of Compstat which was an innovative new way of tracking statistics in the city, worked with NYPD to crack down on seemingly unimportant crimes, such as graffiti and squeegeemen (the guys who come and clean your windscreen at the traffic lights). He was mocked for this, but in line with the Broken Windows theory these actions started to demonstrate that there was now a different set of rules in play in New York. He then followed this up by restricting the presence of sex shops and cracking down on antisocial behaviour, with the result that New York had a bigger fall in the crime rate than the national average, and returned to its place as one of the preeminent tourist destinations in the world.
Critics have argued that the fall in the crime rate (particularly noticeable in the murder rate) was a reflection of wider national trends, however, the fact that NY managed to consistently beat that national average implies that there were also local dynamics making crucial improvements, especially in contrast to other comparable cities such as Los Angeles. But we as a Party do not seem to have taken those examples on board. Yes, Giuliani is a Republican, but we should be looking to build on success and to implement policies which have been proven to work. However, if Boris Johnson has half a brain (debatable I know!) and implements them in London with similar success, we could be viewing a significant period of Conservative Mayoralty.
Crime is a fear and a significant issue for the public, and we have to respond to this. The Party has to show that we are listening and also that we are learning from elsewhere - we are right not to make unsustainable 'promises' of specific numbers of new police like the SNP did, but we do need to commit to a well-supported police force, able to respond to communities in effective ways. The dispute over the pay for the police was a ridiculous mess which seriously harmed our credibility, and we need to accept the decision that was made by the panel. We need to restore respect for the force by ensuring that it is seen as part of the community, at the service of the community.
Conservatives talk about crime but only to stoke up fear in order to profit electorally. We need to return to Tony Blair's pledge and follow it through - it is possible to be of the left and still tough when dealing with criminal behaviour. We are the Party who believe in society, in contrast to Thatcher's legacy in the Conservative Party, but we do not demonstrate this if we do not listen and respond to the fears which society has.
We therefore want nothing to do with it as a Party. However, there are elements underlying some of the issues and fears which people have which do require action and which we can make positive changes to. I am going to try and explore some of these in a series of blogs, starting with crime. It is just thoughts on specific areas of each issue, but hopefully might provoke debate.
It is hard to not be influenced by the stories which we see reported in the media. The series of tragic murders in London and elsewhere have been hugely emotive. The thought that young people are being killed, often by accident or chance, is one that points strongly to serious problems within elements of our society. Glasgow may not have as many murders, but we have the joint highest incidence of knife crime in the world per head of population. London feels that it is in the midst of an epidemic of knife-related murders and other urban areas also fear the influence of knives in their communities. General public opinion reflects a fear of crime, particularly serious crime, even if the actual reality is that they are unlikely to come into contact with it. There is a widespread demonisation of young people, with the inevitable generational rift that follows on from this.
I believe that within this context, the Broken Windows theory of James Wilson and George Kelling deserves a serious look (available at http://www.manhattan-institute.org/pdf/_atlantic_monthly-broken_windows.pdf). Essentially, their theory holds that fear of crime is often linked to a causal process, starting with issues as simple as windows in a building being broken. If the windows are not fixed, then an impression is created that breaking them will not lead to any repercussions, and more will be broken. Over time, this can lead on to other crime being more common, as an environment is created without social responsibility. Although it is not inevitable that serious crime will flourish, the perception of those living in the community (and indeed it can progress to the stage where there ceases to be a true community) will be that there are not boundaries or rules, with a resultant lowering in their own feelings of safety.
This is, for me, a fascinating concept, as it is really rooted in psychology and emotional effects - working on how people feel and think about where they live, work or commute. There is a benefit to increasing the feelings of safety that people have, even if it doesn't appear to be directly related to the realities on the ground. This is reflected in the insecure feelings which are reported in the UK just now - although most people do not come into contact with crime or disorderly behaviour, they feel insecure and worried that they will be affected by it.
One of the obvious measures which can be introduced in relation to this is putting police on the beat. Now, most studies have shown that foot patrols do not lead to a demonstrable reduction in the crime rate, and therefore they have been reduced in numbers. However, what they do do is increase the feeling of security in a community, and increase the connection and interaction between the police and the community. The Police Force exists to serve our communities, but nowadays it is very detached from those they serve. It is not to hark back to an idyllic past which never existed, but there is certainly a difference between having a Police Force which is only seen at moments of crisis and one which is a welcome and visible presence in a community. Community involvement on the behalf of the police has to be more than just visiting schools or directly responding to criminal behaviour when it has reached breaking point.
Tony Blair famously declared that the Labour Party would be tough on crime and on the causes of crime, but I think we have not followed through on this clearly enough. There still seems to be a feeling that law and order is a right wing issue, and that only conservatives discuss society and its ills. This is a failure on our part, and presents an open goal for the Conservatives. To highlight this, we can take the example of New York.
NY is one of the most Democratic cities in the US - Republicans are heavily outnumbered in terms of voters and representatives. However, the most successful Mayor of New York in recent years has been Rudy Giuliani. When he became Mayor in 1994, he took over the running of a city which was viewed as out of control and offputting to tourists and residents alike. But crucially, it was also felt that this was the inevitable result of urban decay and nothing could be done to change it. Giuliani took the Broken Windows theory as his inspirition and, combined with the introduction of Compstat which was an innovative new way of tracking statistics in the city, worked with NYPD to crack down on seemingly unimportant crimes, such as graffiti and squeegeemen (the guys who come and clean your windscreen at the traffic lights). He was mocked for this, but in line with the Broken Windows theory these actions started to demonstrate that there was now a different set of rules in play in New York. He then followed this up by restricting the presence of sex shops and cracking down on antisocial behaviour, with the result that New York had a bigger fall in the crime rate than the national average, and returned to its place as one of the preeminent tourist destinations in the world.
Critics have argued that the fall in the crime rate (particularly noticeable in the murder rate) was a reflection of wider national trends, however, the fact that NY managed to consistently beat that national average implies that there were also local dynamics making crucial improvements, especially in contrast to other comparable cities such as Los Angeles. But we as a Party do not seem to have taken those examples on board. Yes, Giuliani is a Republican, but we should be looking to build on success and to implement policies which have been proven to work. However, if Boris Johnson has half a brain (debatable I know!) and implements them in London with similar success, we could be viewing a significant period of Conservative Mayoralty.
Crime is a fear and a significant issue for the public, and we have to respond to this. The Party has to show that we are listening and also that we are learning from elsewhere - we are right not to make unsustainable 'promises' of specific numbers of new police like the SNP did, but we do need to commit to a well-supported police force, able to respond to communities in effective ways. The dispute over the pay for the police was a ridiculous mess which seriously harmed our credibility, and we need to accept the decision that was made by the panel. We need to restore respect for the force by ensuring that it is seen as part of the community, at the service of the community.
Conservatives talk about crime but only to stoke up fear in order to profit electorally. We need to return to Tony Blair's pledge and follow it through - it is possible to be of the left and still tough when dealing with criminal behaviour. We are the Party who believe in society, in contrast to Thatcher's legacy in the Conservative Party, but we do not demonstrate this if we do not listen and respond to the fears which society has.
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
Politics as art
"Should art and politics mix? Absolutely. Politics is an art and should be aspirational. Politics should never be mundane or accepting of the status quo, and neither should art." Eliza Carthy, English folk musician in New Statesman (30th June 08)
I read the quote above from Eliza Carthy from last week's New Statesman this morning and have been capitivated by it ever since. My job is focussed on encouraging ethnic minority communities in Scotland to participate in democracy and politics. Sadly, I often encounter reactions from people which highlight their disillusionment with politics and the fact that they don't see it as relevant to their lives - and we all know that this is an attitude common to all sectors of society just now.
Politics has become a discredited subject, something that only geeks or power crazed individuals are attracted to. The only time art is ever mentioned in connection to it is "The Dark Arts" of spin and media manipulation. Politics is about back stabbing, power and domination, and is a world far removed from the concerns of everyday life.
What a shame. For me, politics is the thread which flows through all of life, impacting on every aspect of our existence. I start every one of my presentations by focussing on this, by emphasising the role that politics has on our lives. Politics is the chance to change the world and change life - far too important for us not to be involved in.
Looking at it as an art form is an an exciting new way of thinking. Art is the "quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing or of more than ordinary significance." (dictionary.com) Politics is, can be, and indeed should be, all of these things. Artists seek to change the world, to share their vision and allow others to see through their eyes, feel through their emotions and think through their thoughts. All of these should underpin our politics, creating beauty rather than staid management.
Art can be controversial but it is inspiring and gets people talking - beauty attracts and motivates, whereas the boring may be reassuring but is rarely inspiring. Of course, I am not reducing this to beauty in physical terms - afterall, politics has been called acting for ugly people, so our representative bodies tend not to have many classically beautiful people in them!
However, beauty in terms of inspiration should be at the heart of our policies as a Labour Party. To create a radical centre, we need to be able to create a coalition - to do this, we need to motivate people with disparate goals and ideas. To win and to make a difference to the country, we need to do more than be conservative and boring. We need to take risks and to provoke discussion - we then need to participate in those discussions to outline our point of view and defend our principles. Maybe it is naive to believe that discussion still has a place in the modern 24hr media world, but I think we underestimate the public if we leave the control of the debate to the Sun and its ilk.
Politics as art, beautiful policy. Am I going mad? =)
I read the quote above from Eliza Carthy from last week's New Statesman this morning and have been capitivated by it ever since. My job is focussed on encouraging ethnic minority communities in Scotland to participate in democracy and politics. Sadly, I often encounter reactions from people which highlight their disillusionment with politics and the fact that they don't see it as relevant to their lives - and we all know that this is an attitude common to all sectors of society just now.
Politics has become a discredited subject, something that only geeks or power crazed individuals are attracted to. The only time art is ever mentioned in connection to it is "The Dark Arts" of spin and media manipulation. Politics is about back stabbing, power and domination, and is a world far removed from the concerns of everyday life.
What a shame. For me, politics is the thread which flows through all of life, impacting on every aspect of our existence. I start every one of my presentations by focussing on this, by emphasising the role that politics has on our lives. Politics is the chance to change the world and change life - far too important for us not to be involved in.
Looking at it as an art form is an an exciting new way of thinking. Art is the "quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing or of more than ordinary significance." (dictionary.com) Politics is, can be, and indeed should be, all of these things. Artists seek to change the world, to share their vision and allow others to see through their eyes, feel through their emotions and think through their thoughts. All of these should underpin our politics, creating beauty rather than staid management.
Art can be controversial but it is inspiring and gets people talking - beauty attracts and motivates, whereas the boring may be reassuring but is rarely inspiring. Of course, I am not reducing this to beauty in physical terms - afterall, politics has been called acting for ugly people, so our representative bodies tend not to have many classically beautiful people in them!
However, beauty in terms of inspiration should be at the heart of our policies as a Labour Party. To create a radical centre, we need to be able to create a coalition - to do this, we need to motivate people with disparate goals and ideas. To win and to make a difference to the country, we need to do more than be conservative and boring. We need to take risks and to provoke discussion - we then need to participate in those discussions to outline our point of view and defend our principles. Maybe it is naive to believe that discussion still has a place in the modern 24hr media world, but I think we underestimate the public if we leave the control of the debate to the Sun and its ilk.
Politics as art, beautiful policy. Am I going mad? =)
Monday, June 23, 2008
The imperative of regime change
Zimbabwe is beyond the edge of the precipice, sliding rapidly down into its depths. The despot who calls himself President has succeeded in finally killing democracy, with the successful use of violence and intimidation causing the leader of the opposition, Morgan Tsvangirai, to withdraw from a Presidential run-off which should never have occurred in the first place. Tsvangirai's decision is understandable and probably unavoidable - he has demonstrated his moral superiority over Mugabe by placing the needs and lives of those he represents first - but is the final nail in the coffin for democracy in the country. There is no way in future that Mugabe will be disposed of at the ballot box, as he has confirmed that violence will succeed. Therefore, we must step beyond the hope of electoral success and strongly support a concerted effort to remove him from his position.
There will be a collective shiver down liberal spines at the mention of regime change, especially given the debacle of Iraq. However, Zimbabwe descent into hell is a crime against humanity which, I believe, we are obliged to answer. The economy is destroyed, the fabric of the country is threadbare and the population is being murdered - the opposition MDC have described it as genocide and we must listen carefully to that description. To our eternal shame, we in the West stood by and allowed the massacre of Rwanda to occur, wringing our hands at the horror and fretting over what to do. Never again should have been the one lesson that we took from it, however we are standing by and allowing other countries to slip towards repetition. Zimbabwe's crisis is a disaster for its people, but also threatens to destablise the entire region. A country that should be able to provide food for the entire continent is instead starving, its people fleeing and the having to return, driven off by racist violence in South Africa. For countries such as South Africa, the influx of poverty stricken refugees adds additional strain to systems which are struggling and appear unjust to its citizens. Fear of the other and allocating blame to those different from oneself - these are sadly constants throughout human history, repeated around the world in every different culture.
What then are we to do? Well, the problem that we find ourselves in is that we are the former colonial power. We fret about looking like we are trying to take over again, and Mugabe plays cleverly upon this. He blames us for everything he doesn't like, alleging our influence in the affairs of the opposition. This has meant that we have wisely taken a step back from direct involvement. The Government has been at the forefront of world efforts to criticise Mugabe's administration, and has tried to push neighbouring countries, South Africa in particular, to take the lead - it should be commended for all of this. However, the neighbouring states have thus far failed in their task. Thabo Mbeki, President of South Africa, has been negligent in taking a firmer line with Mugabe, and in fact has helped to protect his regime from some of the international pressure. In a misguided attempt at solidarity (admittedly partly shaped by the remaining regard for Mugabe as a freedom fighter which many Africans still possess) he has not fulfilled the leadership role which is his responsibility, and now the failure of this is threatening to destabilise his own country.
It appears clear to me that the time is now upon us for direct military intervention into Zimbabwe, to remove Mugabe, preferably to the Hague for trial. The use of soft power, through diplomacy and dialogue has sadly failed, and it now falls upon the international community to provide Mugabe with an ultimatimum backed up with the sanction of military force. This must be an international mission, led by the neighbouring countries but supported to the hilt by the UK. Our colonial legacy in Zimbabwe does not mean that we must remain uninvolved - rather it insists that we must be invovled in resolving the mistakes of the past and ensuring a better future for the people of Zimbabwe. Mugabe has already promised civil war to keep the MDC out, and retains the support of the military to back him up in this promise. Intervention on behalf of the international community would therefore not be a provocation to new actions, rather it presents our last opportunity to intervene before the final strands of cohesion in the country collapse. This military intervention must be backed up with guaranteed economic aid, a clear strategy for post intervention reconciliation and recovery and the leadership of other African nations as a demonstration that this is not some sort of neocolonial strategy, but rather a reflection of the international community's response to the collapse of democracy and the destabilisation of an entire region.
Sadly, this will not happen, certainly not before it is too late. The drive for such action must come from the neighbouring countries, especially South Africa, and their actions thus far have made this incredibly unlikely. Our own legitimacy in leading humanitarian interventions has been damaged by Iraq and has not yet recovered, whilst the US, even more tarnished in reputation, have very little interest in the affairs of Zimbabwe. South Africa's mistaken solidarity with a failed freedom fighter diminish the status of African nations, and cast doubt upon its desire to become a permanent member of the Security Council. Zimbabwe's self-destruction drags down the continent, reflecting a failure in democracy and governance all too common in the post-colonial independent states.
Military intervention must come, and military intervention will come. The choice for the international community is whether this will be on our terms or in response to the final collapse of Zimbabwe.
There will be a collective shiver down liberal spines at the mention of regime change, especially given the debacle of Iraq. However, Zimbabwe descent into hell is a crime against humanity which, I believe, we are obliged to answer. The economy is destroyed, the fabric of the country is threadbare and the population is being murdered - the opposition MDC have described it as genocide and we must listen carefully to that description. To our eternal shame, we in the West stood by and allowed the massacre of Rwanda to occur, wringing our hands at the horror and fretting over what to do. Never again should have been the one lesson that we took from it, however we are standing by and allowing other countries to slip towards repetition. Zimbabwe's crisis is a disaster for its people, but also threatens to destablise the entire region. A country that should be able to provide food for the entire continent is instead starving, its people fleeing and the having to return, driven off by racist violence in South Africa. For countries such as South Africa, the influx of poverty stricken refugees adds additional strain to systems which are struggling and appear unjust to its citizens. Fear of the other and allocating blame to those different from oneself - these are sadly constants throughout human history, repeated around the world in every different culture.
What then are we to do? Well, the problem that we find ourselves in is that we are the former colonial power. We fret about looking like we are trying to take over again, and Mugabe plays cleverly upon this. He blames us for everything he doesn't like, alleging our influence in the affairs of the opposition. This has meant that we have wisely taken a step back from direct involvement. The Government has been at the forefront of world efforts to criticise Mugabe's administration, and has tried to push neighbouring countries, South Africa in particular, to take the lead - it should be commended for all of this. However, the neighbouring states have thus far failed in their task. Thabo Mbeki, President of South Africa, has been negligent in taking a firmer line with Mugabe, and in fact has helped to protect his regime from some of the international pressure. In a misguided attempt at solidarity (admittedly partly shaped by the remaining regard for Mugabe as a freedom fighter which many Africans still possess) he has not fulfilled the leadership role which is his responsibility, and now the failure of this is threatening to destabilise his own country.
It appears clear to me that the time is now upon us for direct military intervention into Zimbabwe, to remove Mugabe, preferably to the Hague for trial. The use of soft power, through diplomacy and dialogue has sadly failed, and it now falls upon the international community to provide Mugabe with an ultimatimum backed up with the sanction of military force. This must be an international mission, led by the neighbouring countries but supported to the hilt by the UK. Our colonial legacy in Zimbabwe does not mean that we must remain uninvolved - rather it insists that we must be invovled in resolving the mistakes of the past and ensuring a better future for the people of Zimbabwe. Mugabe has already promised civil war to keep the MDC out, and retains the support of the military to back him up in this promise. Intervention on behalf of the international community would therefore not be a provocation to new actions, rather it presents our last opportunity to intervene before the final strands of cohesion in the country collapse. This military intervention must be backed up with guaranteed economic aid, a clear strategy for post intervention reconciliation and recovery and the leadership of other African nations as a demonstration that this is not some sort of neocolonial strategy, but rather a reflection of the international community's response to the collapse of democracy and the destabilisation of an entire region.
Sadly, this will not happen, certainly not before it is too late. The drive for such action must come from the neighbouring countries, especially South Africa, and their actions thus far have made this incredibly unlikely. Our own legitimacy in leading humanitarian interventions has been damaged by Iraq and has not yet recovered, whilst the US, even more tarnished in reputation, have very little interest in the affairs of Zimbabwe. South Africa's mistaken solidarity with a failed freedom fighter diminish the status of African nations, and cast doubt upon its desire to become a permanent member of the Security Council. Zimbabwe's self-destruction drags down the continent, reflecting a failure in democracy and governance all too common in the post-colonial independent states.
Military intervention must come, and military intervention will come. The choice for the international community is whether this will be on our terms or in response to the final collapse of Zimbabwe.
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
The Conversation
Margaret Hodge's speech to the IPPR on Britishness, Heritage and Culture is being reported on the BBC website due to her perceived criticism of the Proms for not being inclusive enough. You can read (or indeed listen to) a copy of the speech on the IPPR website, and it is an interesting contribution to the ongoing debate over 'Britishness', and raises the question of the role that culture can play in the cohesion of a society.
Margaret starts by outlining that she is looking at the role of cultural institutions in developing "shared values and common purpose". She outlines her own initial experience of Britishness - having arrived in the UK as part of an immigrant family, she was forced to eat cucumber sandwiches and fruit cake to convince the inspector that they were British enough! It is a lovely story, but it did make me stop and think. I don't think I've ever eaten a cucumber sandwich in my life! Indeed, living in Glasgow, traditional 'British' fare (in the post devolution whirlwind that we live in, of course there is great debate over British/Scottish, but that is a tangent!) would be seen as chips, either with fish, pie or smothered in cheese, washed down with a large volume of lager. Margaret Hodge might have had more of a struggle to get citizenship if that had been the test!
Of course, I am playing up to stereotypes, but isn't this what the test itself implied? National identity is a ethereal concept, and often becomes associated with either concepts which go beyond national borders (equality, fair play, liberty etc) or are based on stereotypical concepts. So Britishness should be defined by either a commitment to 'fair play' (whatever that exactly means) and/or a stiff upper lip and lack of culinary ability.
Margaret explored culture as a means for bringing together a society and helping to find shared bonds. I think that she has a valid point with this, however I think that the shared bonds that are discovered through 'culture' are more often than not bonds which join all humanity, not just the members of our national community. Music, art, sport, knowledge - these are all international bonds, which are fed by the experience of human beings across the planet. We may bring particular viewpoints to them, shaped by our geographic location, upbring, history or beliefs, but ultimately they succeed because they tap into a beauty and inspiration which is shared across the world.
She is right to encourage culture and to open it up to all. A country with a flourishing cultural sector will indeed witness improved bonds as a society - but they will be improved because our society will be looking outwards to the world, rather than inwards to what makes us different. I am proud of my country, and I believe that our history and context do help us to play a role in the world which can do great good. However, our role in the world is to sustain and support our fellow humans, learning from the knowledge and beauty that they posses, and helping them to share in what we have.
In her speech, Margaret described culture as "the public expression of the constant and unyielding conversation between our values, rules and behaviour". This, to me, is a beautiful way of expressing what culture can and should be, and the role that it can play. But it also clearly demonstrates the never ending evolution of culture. If it is ever possible to define Britishness today, we can guarantee that by tomorrow that definition will have changed as it winds along its never ending path.
The Proms are a unique experience, the only real time (other than in the bedlam of a sporting event) that Britain really goes overly patriotic. If anything, the Proms could be dismissed as being the opposite of stereotypical Britishness, a 'foreign' approach, not in keeping with our carefully maintained reserve. But this is what makes the Proms special. A reserved nation going mad over the (stereotypically) most reserved form of music. It is a ludicrous joy, and Margaret is right to want to explore the event to make sure that it is as accessible to every one as it can be.
Margaret rightly identifies that each of us has multiple identities, and that these can react to events in different ways. This is crucial to the debate on national identity. We need to accept that someone can be a British Muslim, with both of those identities equally important to them. We need to accept that someone can be a Scot and a Brit without compromising either of those identities, but rather strengthening them. Diversity is not a weakness in our country, and we need to start celebrating it rather than lameting the loss of a nation that, in reality, never existed.
Britain is not the same now as it was a generation ago, and this will be the same in future. We are changing and adapting, moving into the uncertain future influenced by the diverse pasts that we bring to the conversation. Our culture will adapt with this conversation, reflecting the triumphs and tensions that we are going through, bringing our particular viewpoints to the international discussion. Sometimes the conversation will be heated and voices will be raised - this will be reflected by productions which push boundaries or challenge conceptions and beliefs. But ultimately, as long as we all keep talking, the conversation moves on, and new topics appeal to different sides of our multifaceted identities.
Culture can be ignored in the hustle bustle of economics and politics, but it is culture that makes the world real and our dreams worthwhile. A commitment to culture is a crucial aspect of our desire to make our country, and the world, a better place, and we must ensure that we keep conversing.
Margaret starts by outlining that she is looking at the role of cultural institutions in developing "shared values and common purpose". She outlines her own initial experience of Britishness - having arrived in the UK as part of an immigrant family, she was forced to eat cucumber sandwiches and fruit cake to convince the inspector that they were British enough! It is a lovely story, but it did make me stop and think. I don't think I've ever eaten a cucumber sandwich in my life! Indeed, living in Glasgow, traditional 'British' fare (in the post devolution whirlwind that we live in, of course there is great debate over British/Scottish, but that is a tangent!) would be seen as chips, either with fish, pie or smothered in cheese, washed down with a large volume of lager. Margaret Hodge might have had more of a struggle to get citizenship if that had been the test!
Of course, I am playing up to stereotypes, but isn't this what the test itself implied? National identity is a ethereal concept, and often becomes associated with either concepts which go beyond national borders (equality, fair play, liberty etc) or are based on stereotypical concepts. So Britishness should be defined by either a commitment to 'fair play' (whatever that exactly means) and/or a stiff upper lip and lack of culinary ability.
Margaret explored culture as a means for bringing together a society and helping to find shared bonds. I think that she has a valid point with this, however I think that the shared bonds that are discovered through 'culture' are more often than not bonds which join all humanity, not just the members of our national community. Music, art, sport, knowledge - these are all international bonds, which are fed by the experience of human beings across the planet. We may bring particular viewpoints to them, shaped by our geographic location, upbring, history or beliefs, but ultimately they succeed because they tap into a beauty and inspiration which is shared across the world.
She is right to encourage culture and to open it up to all. A country with a flourishing cultural sector will indeed witness improved bonds as a society - but they will be improved because our society will be looking outwards to the world, rather than inwards to what makes us different. I am proud of my country, and I believe that our history and context do help us to play a role in the world which can do great good. However, our role in the world is to sustain and support our fellow humans, learning from the knowledge and beauty that they posses, and helping them to share in what we have.
In her speech, Margaret described culture as "the public expression of the constant and unyielding conversation between our values, rules and behaviour". This, to me, is a beautiful way of expressing what culture can and should be, and the role that it can play. But it also clearly demonstrates the never ending evolution of culture. If it is ever possible to define Britishness today, we can guarantee that by tomorrow that definition will have changed as it winds along its never ending path.
The Proms are a unique experience, the only real time (other than in the bedlam of a sporting event) that Britain really goes overly patriotic. If anything, the Proms could be dismissed as being the opposite of stereotypical Britishness, a 'foreign' approach, not in keeping with our carefully maintained reserve. But this is what makes the Proms special. A reserved nation going mad over the (stereotypically) most reserved form of music. It is a ludicrous joy, and Margaret is right to want to explore the event to make sure that it is as accessible to every one as it can be.
Margaret rightly identifies that each of us has multiple identities, and that these can react to events in different ways. This is crucial to the debate on national identity. We need to accept that someone can be a British Muslim, with both of those identities equally important to them. We need to accept that someone can be a Scot and a Brit without compromising either of those identities, but rather strengthening them. Diversity is not a weakness in our country, and we need to start celebrating it rather than lameting the loss of a nation that, in reality, never existed.
Britain is not the same now as it was a generation ago, and this will be the same in future. We are changing and adapting, moving into the uncertain future influenced by the diverse pasts that we bring to the conversation. Our culture will adapt with this conversation, reflecting the triumphs and tensions that we are going through, bringing our particular viewpoints to the international discussion. Sometimes the conversation will be heated and voices will be raised - this will be reflected by productions which push boundaries or challenge conceptions and beliefs. But ultimately, as long as we all keep talking, the conversation moves on, and new topics appeal to different sides of our multifaceted identities.
Culture can be ignored in the hustle bustle of economics and politics, but it is culture that makes the world real and our dreams worthwhile. A commitment to culture is a crucial aspect of our desire to make our country, and the world, a better place, and we must ensure that we keep conversing.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Harry's War
The coverage of Prince Harry's deployment (and subsequent withdrawal) from Afghanistan has been excrutiating.
Now, I am not a monarchist by any stretch of the imagination, but the topic has only made me have sympathy for the Prince. He is a soldier and is serving his country without any desire for special attention. Indeed, he was quoted as describing this as the most normal he will ever be. What a sad reflection on the life he is forced to live.
The nonsense spewed out by the media about it is an insult to Harry and equally to the other servicemen and women serving in horrendous situations across the globe. It is a positive sign for our country that a member of the royal family is serving alongside his countrymen - we should be leaving him to get on with the job.
Instead, he is being returned to Britain because Afghanistan is too dangerous for him. It's one of the most hostile warzones on the planet, so by definition it is too dangerous for anyone. Withdrawing him in such a public manner is humiliating for him (when his tour to Iraq was cancelled he was attacked by some parts of the media as a coward, despite his own desire to go) and an insult to the troops who are left there, and are therefore by definition of less importance or value.
We are engaged in military actions across the world, and it is vital that if we are going to send our citizens into harm's way that we provide them with support. This whole sorry situation will have done no good whatsoever, and will have caused hurt to both Prince Harry and his colleagues.
Now, I am not a monarchist by any stretch of the imagination, but the topic has only made me have sympathy for the Prince. He is a soldier and is serving his country without any desire for special attention. Indeed, he was quoted as describing this as the most normal he will ever be. What a sad reflection on the life he is forced to live.
The nonsense spewed out by the media about it is an insult to Harry and equally to the other servicemen and women serving in horrendous situations across the globe. It is a positive sign for our country that a member of the royal family is serving alongside his countrymen - we should be leaving him to get on with the job.
Instead, he is being returned to Britain because Afghanistan is too dangerous for him. It's one of the most hostile warzones on the planet, so by definition it is too dangerous for anyone. Withdrawing him in such a public manner is humiliating for him (when his tour to Iraq was cancelled he was attacked by some parts of the media as a coward, despite his own desire to go) and an insult to the troops who are left there, and are therefore by definition of less importance or value.
We are engaged in military actions across the world, and it is vital that if we are going to send our citizens into harm's way that we provide them with support. This whole sorry situation will have done no good whatsoever, and will have caused hurt to both Prince Harry and his colleagues.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Telling the Story
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7255488.stm
Intersting article on the BBC site about the role of storytelling in politics. It examines the impact of the "Man from Hope" story that Bill Clinton gave to the US, and which turned his polls around and led to him becoming President. Tony Blair was obviously a successful proponent of the art too. For Gordon Brown, however, it is not something that comes so easily.
Is it a skill that he needs to learn?
I think that the problem can be that policy and detail, whilst vital to the success of programmes the Government implements, is too dry and disconnected for most people in the UK. Most voters don't have the time to pore through intricate detail of policy - rather they are looking for the narrative of why the Government or party campaigning for their votes is planning to implement ideas and what their vision is for the country. People want vision and inspiration - I think they then trust the parties to get on with the indepth details of how things actually work.
Gordon Brown is successful at the intricacies, but the narrative is not yet working. And we'll be in trouble if it doesn't. I think we partly lost the election in Scotland last year due to a lack of inspiring narrative. The Lib/Lab coalition Executive had been functioning very successfully and had lots of concrete, sensible ideas for the next term. The SNP, however, were light on realistic policies (as demonstrated by how quickly they've dropped a lot of them) but provided an exciting narrative - freedom and a bright new paradise of an indepedent Scotland. Now, I'm not suggesting that we sink to their level of putting across narratives based on myths and fallacies, but we do need to look at our vision and our inspiration.
Look at the US. The presumptive nominee for the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton, is looking on the verge of being knocked out of the race by a freshman Senator from Illinois, Barack Obama. He is light on specific policy (try reading his most recent book - lots of lovely rhetoric, not exactly much in the way of practical ideas) but he is exciting and inspiring. His narrative of 'Change' is inspiring voters, who trust that his energy and vision will be underlined by bringing in experts around him who can flesh out the ideas.
Gordon Brown is a man of great moral vision and commitment, and there is no doubt that he has a vision to make Britain a better, fairer society. He has touched on aspects of it during his time, but the travails of the recent months have forced him to become bogged down in the specifics of detail and policy. As a Party and a Government we need to overcome this and redefine our vision. We need to be strongly spreading it, demonstrating why we should remain in Government in Westminster, and return to Government in Holyrood.
A strong vision will show the paltry efforts of the other parties for the shams that they are. But if we do not share this vision, then we will suffer and Britain will take a different direction in the future from the society that we would like to see.
Intersting article on the BBC site about the role of storytelling in politics. It examines the impact of the "Man from Hope" story that Bill Clinton gave to the US, and which turned his polls around and led to him becoming President. Tony Blair was obviously a successful proponent of the art too. For Gordon Brown, however, it is not something that comes so easily.
Is it a skill that he needs to learn?
I think that the problem can be that policy and detail, whilst vital to the success of programmes the Government implements, is too dry and disconnected for most people in the UK. Most voters don't have the time to pore through intricate detail of policy - rather they are looking for the narrative of why the Government or party campaigning for their votes is planning to implement ideas and what their vision is for the country. People want vision and inspiration - I think they then trust the parties to get on with the indepth details of how things actually work.
Gordon Brown is successful at the intricacies, but the narrative is not yet working. And we'll be in trouble if it doesn't. I think we partly lost the election in Scotland last year due to a lack of inspiring narrative. The Lib/Lab coalition Executive had been functioning very successfully and had lots of concrete, sensible ideas for the next term. The SNP, however, were light on realistic policies (as demonstrated by how quickly they've dropped a lot of them) but provided an exciting narrative - freedom and a bright new paradise of an indepedent Scotland. Now, I'm not suggesting that we sink to their level of putting across narratives based on myths and fallacies, but we do need to look at our vision and our inspiration.
Look at the US. The presumptive nominee for the Democratic Party, Hillary Clinton, is looking on the verge of being knocked out of the race by a freshman Senator from Illinois, Barack Obama. He is light on specific policy (try reading his most recent book - lots of lovely rhetoric, not exactly much in the way of practical ideas) but he is exciting and inspiring. His narrative of 'Change' is inspiring voters, who trust that his energy and vision will be underlined by bringing in experts around him who can flesh out the ideas.
Gordon Brown is a man of great moral vision and commitment, and there is no doubt that he has a vision to make Britain a better, fairer society. He has touched on aspects of it during his time, but the travails of the recent months have forced him to become bogged down in the specifics of detail and policy. As a Party and a Government we need to overcome this and redefine our vision. We need to be strongly spreading it, demonstrating why we should remain in Government in Westminster, and return to Government in Holyrood.
A strong vision will show the paltry efforts of the other parties for the shams that they are. But if we do not share this vision, then we will suffer and Britain will take a different direction in the future from the society that we would like to see.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Banning of extremist cleric
I was pleased to see that the controversial Egyptian cleric Yusuf al-Qaradawi has been refused entry to the UK, although I was likewise disappointed that Muslim organisations such as the MCB reacted so negatively to the decision.
I don't think that this decision has been made from an anti-Muslim point of view. This is a man who uses his religious beliefs as an excuse for justifying terrorism and morality that fundamentally opposes the system of justice that we have in our society in the UK. He has called for homosexuals to be executed and defended the right of husbands to use violence against their wives.
The MCB has used the right to free speech as a reason why he should be allowed to come here. We have a long tradition of that right, and it is imperative that we allow our citizens to use it. However, this right does not have to extend to foreign nationals seeking to export an extremist message to the UK which is against our laws.
This counts for all extremists - it is not to do with the religion they cloak their message with, and should apply equally to white supremacists as to Muslim exponents as to any other extremist.
It is vitally important that we engage with our Muslim citizens to build stronger links and demonstrate that they are highly valued members and contributors to our society. However, this does not have to mean compromising on our judgements of what is right and wrong. Banning al-Qaradawi is a progressive decision, and one to be welcomed.
I don't think that this decision has been made from an anti-Muslim point of view. This is a man who uses his religious beliefs as an excuse for justifying terrorism and morality that fundamentally opposes the system of justice that we have in our society in the UK. He has called for homosexuals to be executed and defended the right of husbands to use violence against their wives.
The MCB has used the right to free speech as a reason why he should be allowed to come here. We have a long tradition of that right, and it is imperative that we allow our citizens to use it. However, this right does not have to extend to foreign nationals seeking to export an extremist message to the UK which is against our laws.
This counts for all extremists - it is not to do with the religion they cloak their message with, and should apply equally to white supremacists as to Muslim exponents as to any other extremist.
It is vitally important that we engage with our Muslim citizens to build stronger links and demonstrate that they are highly valued members and contributors to our society. However, this does not have to mean compromising on our judgements of what is right and wrong. Banning al-Qaradawi is a progressive decision, and one to be welcomed.
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Edwards is out
Just heard that John Edwards is dropping out of the Democratic race. Not a huge surprise, but certainly narrows the focus even more to a Obama-Clinton fight. Will be interesting to see if he endorses - my bet would be that he and his supporters go over to Obama.
Another VP nomination maybe?
Another VP nomination maybe?
The Keys to Florida
What a massive, massive win for John McCain in the Florida Primary last night. Although he didn't win by a huge margin (only about 5 points over Romney) it now installs him as the frontrunner for the Republican nomination.
It has been an amazing campaign for McCain. His campaign has been running on fumes for a while now, ever since he was declared dead in the water during the summer, when he was the only candidate to support the surge in Iraq - indeed, he had been suggesting the idea long before Bush proposed it. Some of his main campaign team have been working for free as the money has dried up, yet they have managed to propel him to the forefront of a very crowded pack.
I think that McCain is the most dangerous candidate that the Democratic Party can face in November. Although he has tacked to the right during the primaries, he has a long and respected tradition of bipartisan working and of sticking to his guns, even if his views were unpopular in the Republican Party. (i.e. immigration, campaign finance reform) Although his age would be used against him, his energy is undeniable, particularly when supported by his 90+ mum on the campaign trail. (Indeed, when Chuck Norris made derogatory marks about McCain's age, McCain replied by saying that he would send his mother after him. And seriously, my money would be on her!) He is a former prisoner of war, a highly experienced Senator and foreign policy expert, and would in particular contrast strongly with Barack on a number of issues.
Romney of course is still in the race, although Florida was a blow to his chances. He would present less of a challenge to the Dems, as his record (from liberalish Governor of Massachusetts to the right wing demagogue he is trying to portray himself as now) is very open to attack, if not indeed ridicule. Sadly (as I don't believe it should matter) his religion will count against him too, which would more than cancel out any negativity towards the Democratic candidate being either a woman or an African American.
The other big effect of Florida has been the destruction of the Giuliani campaign. His decision to risk everything on Florida and Super Tuesday was always a dangerous one, but for a while it looked like the lack of a frontrunner might have proved him right. However, McCain's win in South Carolina, Romney's cash and a strange lack of enthusiasm on Giuliani's part combined to push him to a very distant third in Florida. It now looks like he will drop out and endorse McCain, further strengthening his claim to be the favoured candidate.
For the Dems, Florida was largely symbolic as the party has punished the state for bringing its primary forward by banning their delegates. However, it did give a welcome win to the Clinton camp, with her taking 50% of the vote. It is almost definite that Super Tuesday will not finish off the Democratic race, so we can expect this race to keep on running for some time now.
It has been an amazing campaign for McCain. His campaign has been running on fumes for a while now, ever since he was declared dead in the water during the summer, when he was the only candidate to support the surge in Iraq - indeed, he had been suggesting the idea long before Bush proposed it. Some of his main campaign team have been working for free as the money has dried up, yet they have managed to propel him to the forefront of a very crowded pack.
I think that McCain is the most dangerous candidate that the Democratic Party can face in November. Although he has tacked to the right during the primaries, he has a long and respected tradition of bipartisan working and of sticking to his guns, even if his views were unpopular in the Republican Party. (i.e. immigration, campaign finance reform) Although his age would be used against him, his energy is undeniable, particularly when supported by his 90+ mum on the campaign trail. (Indeed, when Chuck Norris made derogatory marks about McCain's age, McCain replied by saying that he would send his mother after him. And seriously, my money would be on her!) He is a former prisoner of war, a highly experienced Senator and foreign policy expert, and would in particular contrast strongly with Barack on a number of issues.
Romney of course is still in the race, although Florida was a blow to his chances. He would present less of a challenge to the Dems, as his record (from liberalish Governor of Massachusetts to the right wing demagogue he is trying to portray himself as now) is very open to attack, if not indeed ridicule. Sadly (as I don't believe it should matter) his religion will count against him too, which would more than cancel out any negativity towards the Democratic candidate being either a woman or an African American.
The other big effect of Florida has been the destruction of the Giuliani campaign. His decision to risk everything on Florida and Super Tuesday was always a dangerous one, but for a while it looked like the lack of a frontrunner might have proved him right. However, McCain's win in South Carolina, Romney's cash and a strange lack of enthusiasm on Giuliani's part combined to push him to a very distant third in Florida. It now looks like he will drop out and endorse McCain, further strengthening his claim to be the favoured candidate.
For the Dems, Florida was largely symbolic as the party has punished the state for bringing its primary forward by banning their delegates. However, it did give a welcome win to the Clinton camp, with her taking 50% of the vote. It is almost definite that Super Tuesday will not finish off the Democratic race, so we can expect this race to keep on running for some time now.
What a massive, massive win for John McCain in the Florida Primary last night. Although he didn't win by a huge margin (only about 5 points over Romney) it now installs him as the frontrunner for the Republican nomination.
It has been an amazing campaign for McCain. His campaign has been running on fumes for a while now, ever since he was declared dead in the water during the summer, when he was the only candidate to support the surge in Iraq - indeed, he had been suggesting the idea long before Bush proposed it. Some of his main campaign team have been working for free as the money has dried up, yet they have managed to propel him to the forefront of a very crowded pack.
I think that McCain is the most dangerous candidate that the Democratic Party can face in November. Although he has tacked to the right during the primaries, he has a long and respected tradition of bipartisan working and of sticking to his guns, even if his views were unpopular in the Republican Party. (i.e. immigration, campaign finance reform) Although his age would be used against him, his energy is undeniable, particularly when supported by his 90+ mum on the campaign trail. (Indeed, when Chuck Norris made derogatory marks about McCain's age, McCain replied by saying that he would send his mother after him. And seriously, my money would be on her!) He is a former prisoner of war, a highly experienced Senator and foreign policy expert, and would in particular contrast strongly with Barack on a number of issues.
Romney of course is still in the race, although Florida was a blow to his chances. He would present less of a challenge to the Dems, as his record (from liberalish Governor of Massachusetts to the right wing demagogue he is trying to portray himself as now) is very open to attack, if not indeed ridicule. Sadly (as I don't believe it should matter) his religion will count against him too, which would more than cancel out any negativity towards the Democratic candidate being either a woman or an African American.
The other big effect of Florida has been the destruction of the Giuliani campaign. His decision to risk everything on Florida and Super Tuesday was always a dangerous one, but for a while it looked like the lack of a frontrunner might have proved him right. However, McCain's win in South Carolina, Romney's cash and a strange lack of enthusiasm on Giuliani's part combined to push him to a very distant third in Florida. It now looks like he will drop out and endorse McCain, further strengthening his claim to be the favoured candidate.
For the Dems, Florida was largely symbolic as the party has punished the state for bringing its primary forward by banning their delegates. However, it did give a welcome win to the Clinton camp, with her taking 50% of the vote. It is almost definite that Super Tuesday will not finish off the Democratic race, so we can expect this race to keep on running for some time now.
It has been an amazing campaign for McCain. His campaign has been running on fumes for a while now, ever since he was declared dead in the water during the summer, when he was the only candidate to support the surge in Iraq - indeed, he had been suggesting the idea long before Bush proposed it. Some of his main campaign team have been working for free as the money has dried up, yet they have managed to propel him to the forefront of a very crowded pack.
I think that McCain is the most dangerous candidate that the Democratic Party can face in November. Although he has tacked to the right during the primaries, he has a long and respected tradition of bipartisan working and of sticking to his guns, even if his views were unpopular in the Republican Party. (i.e. immigration, campaign finance reform) Although his age would be used against him, his energy is undeniable, particularly when supported by his 90+ mum on the campaign trail. (Indeed, when Chuck Norris made derogatory marks about McCain's age, McCain replied by saying that he would send his mother after him. And seriously, my money would be on her!) He is a former prisoner of war, a highly experienced Senator and foreign policy expert, and would in particular contrast strongly with Barack on a number of issues.
Romney of course is still in the race, although Florida was a blow to his chances. He would present less of a challenge to the Dems, as his record (from liberalish Governor of Massachusetts to the right wing demagogue he is trying to portray himself as now) is very open to attack, if not indeed ridicule. Sadly (as I don't believe it should matter) his religion will count against him too, which would more than cancel out any negativity towards the Democratic candidate being either a woman or an African American.
The other big effect of Florida has been the destruction of the Giuliani campaign. His decision to risk everything on Florida and Super Tuesday was always a dangerous one, but for a while it looked like the lack of a frontrunner might have proved him right. However, McCain's win in South Carolina, Romney's cash and a strange lack of enthusiasm on Giuliani's part combined to push him to a very distant third in Florida. It now looks like he will drop out and endorse McCain, further strengthening his claim to be the favoured candidate.
For the Dems, Florida was largely symbolic as the party has punished the state for bringing its primary forward by banning their delegates. However, it did give a welcome win to the Clinton camp, with her taking 50% of the vote. It is almost definite that Super Tuesday will not finish off the Democratic race, so we can expect this race to keep on running for some time now.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
The UN Security Council
I think Gordon Brown has had a successful trip to India and China, and the resulting trade deals and links will be beneficial to our economy in the turbulent times ahead. One issue I was particularly pleased to see raised was Gordon's support for India taking a permanent seat on the UN Security Council.
The current composition is a reflection of the post-war environment. It has served its purpose, but we now need to strengthen the Council by involving the nations who are now play a key international role.
The UK is taking the lead in this which is encouraging, and I hope that we may see some progress sooner rather than later. Alongside India and China, I think Germany, Brazil, South Africa and Japan should get seats. This would broaden the international outlook of the Council, and improve its standing as a representative of all the world.
The current composition is a reflection of the post-war environment. It has served its purpose, but we now need to strengthen the Council by involving the nations who are now play a key international role.
The UK is taking the lead in this which is encouraging, and I hope that we may see some progress sooner rather than later. Alongside India and China, I think Germany, Brazil, South Africa and Japan should get seats. This would broaden the international outlook of the Council, and improve its standing as a representative of all the world.
Friday, January 18, 2008
The Cold War of the Mind
The tension and mistrust between the UK and Russia is continuing to build. Over recent years, Russia has started to move back into the position that it considers right for itself - regional heavyweight with a view to regaining its superpower status, cemented by bullying tactics against smaller neighbours. Russian behaviour towards Georgia and the Ukraine is threatening to destabilise these nations in their recent political progress, whilst Russian involvement in the Middle East is adding to the mess of the region. None of which is hugely surprising considering the dictatorial tendencies of Time's Man of the Year, Vladimir Putin.
In the midst of all this, it is Britain which is finding itself playing the main role of opposition to the Russian bullying. So much of the current Russian behaviour is an unwelcome return to the cloak and dagger antics of the Cold War era, with their suspected involvement in the murder of Alexander Litvienko and intimidation of British Council staff.
It is understandable why Putin's tactics are supported by many Russians. As happened with Germany following the First World War, people are feeling hurt and embarrassed by the fall of their nation from a strong and feared power to a broken and suffering country. Putin is playing on nationalistic fears and tensions, building a powerful youth movement and ensuring that his grip on power cannot be removed. So it is understandable, but not positive.
The ending of the Cold War was one of the greatest achievement of the end of the 20th Century, but this work will be undone if Russia continues down a totalitarian nationalistic path. I believe that Britain is doing the right thing in standing up to the bullying, and we need to work to keep building up an international consensus in our favour - as demonstrated by the messages in support we have received from the EU and US. However, I hope that David Milliband will be continuing work behind the scenes to rebuild some relationship between our two nations. We do not want Russia to feel too isolated, as this will merely serve as further fuel for Putin. Rather we would like to encourage them to play a positive role on the world stage, with closer links with the EU for mutual development.
However, this desire for interaction has to be balanced with a concern for our national interests and protection of our staff and citizens working in Russia. We have to stand firm and show Russia that there are other ways for it to work that don't have to involve bullying or intimidation.
The world has changed since the Cold War, now Russia must change too.
In the midst of all this, it is Britain which is finding itself playing the main role of opposition to the Russian bullying. So much of the current Russian behaviour is an unwelcome return to the cloak and dagger antics of the Cold War era, with their suspected involvement in the murder of Alexander Litvienko and intimidation of British Council staff.
It is understandable why Putin's tactics are supported by many Russians. As happened with Germany following the First World War, people are feeling hurt and embarrassed by the fall of their nation from a strong and feared power to a broken and suffering country. Putin is playing on nationalistic fears and tensions, building a powerful youth movement and ensuring that his grip on power cannot be removed. So it is understandable, but not positive.
The ending of the Cold War was one of the greatest achievement of the end of the 20th Century, but this work will be undone if Russia continues down a totalitarian nationalistic path. I believe that Britain is doing the right thing in standing up to the bullying, and we need to work to keep building up an international consensus in our favour - as demonstrated by the messages in support we have received from the EU and US. However, I hope that David Milliband will be continuing work behind the scenes to rebuild some relationship between our two nations. We do not want Russia to feel too isolated, as this will merely serve as further fuel for Putin. Rather we would like to encourage them to play a positive role on the world stage, with closer links with the EU for mutual development.
However, this desire for interaction has to be balanced with a concern for our national interests and protection of our staff and citizens working in Russia. We have to stand firm and show Russia that there are other ways for it to work that don't have to involve bullying or intimidation.
The world has changed since the Cold War, now Russia must change too.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
The SNP Approach
If you are ever curious as to how the SNP Government in Scotland prefers to do its business, then the recent SportScotland debate is a good insight.
In case you are not familiar with the story, the SNP pledged in their manifesto to have a 'bonfire of the quangos' with SportScotland one of the key targets. However, when the SNP started investigating the issue, they found that SportScotland is widely respected and considered a key part of the development of Scotland's sport and the successful Commonwealth Games bid. In the face of this expert opinion, the SNP backed down, performed a U-Turn and saved the agency.
Now, this was an ideal opportunity for the SNP. Afterall, the Scottish public is quickly becoming used to the fact that SNP promises are, shall we say, flexible. Therefore the U-Turn was hardly going to be a disaster. Rather they could use it to demostrate that they listened to the right people, and were humble enough to admit that there was a better way forward.
Of course, this is nothing like what happened. Instead of the balanced approach, the SNP went after some of the very experts in a pathetic revenge bid. Following the merger of SportScotland and the Scottish Institute of Sport, both the Chairs have been sacked. Dougie Donnelly (Sports presenter and Chair, sorry former Chair of SportScotland) and Julia Bracewell (a former fencer and his counterpart at the Institute) are both well respected. However they made the cardinal mistake of criticising the Government.
And unfortunately for them, Our Beloved Leader Alex Salmond does not take criticism lightly. Or at all. So in a move that is blatantly obvious to everyone in Scotland, he has thrown his rattle out of the pram and dealt a blow to Scottish sport.
Sadly, I think we will only see more of this. The first year of the SNP Government has been fine for them - short term populist policies, a disorganised opposition and the welcome realisation that actually they wouldn't automatically destroy the country. However, the pressure is going to start improving now as the public start to realise that when the SNP make a promise it's not worth the paper it's printed on. Salmond is the most impressive figure in Scottish politics just now, but he can't cope with anyone disagreeing with his divine mandate - indeed, that smug smirk that we have all missed is making an irritating comeback. But more importantly for the SNP, their talent pool is rather shallow. Stewart Maxwell, the Sports Minister humiliated in this fiasco, is picking up favourite status as to who will be the first Minister to be sacked/resign, Kenny MacAskill is obsessed with picking fights rather than doing his job and the back benches of the SNP posse in the Parliament are quite frankly terrifying.
The opportunity is there for Labour to start working hard and pulling apart the stitches of the SNP group. The discipline that the SNP have exerted thus far has been surprisingly efficient (although checking out their online contributions demonstrates some of the worrying group-think that is becoming prevalent) but the cracks are already there to see. It is our job to open them up.
Salmond has had a good first year, but now the real work starts. Welcome to Government Eck, it's going to be a bumpy ride.
In case you are not familiar with the story, the SNP pledged in their manifesto to have a 'bonfire of the quangos' with SportScotland one of the key targets. However, when the SNP started investigating the issue, they found that SportScotland is widely respected and considered a key part of the development of Scotland's sport and the successful Commonwealth Games bid. In the face of this expert opinion, the SNP backed down, performed a U-Turn and saved the agency.
Now, this was an ideal opportunity for the SNP. Afterall, the Scottish public is quickly becoming used to the fact that SNP promises are, shall we say, flexible. Therefore the U-Turn was hardly going to be a disaster. Rather they could use it to demostrate that they listened to the right people, and were humble enough to admit that there was a better way forward.
Of course, this is nothing like what happened. Instead of the balanced approach, the SNP went after some of the very experts in a pathetic revenge bid. Following the merger of SportScotland and the Scottish Institute of Sport, both the Chairs have been sacked. Dougie Donnelly (Sports presenter and Chair, sorry former Chair of SportScotland) and Julia Bracewell (a former fencer and his counterpart at the Institute) are both well respected. However they made the cardinal mistake of criticising the Government.
And unfortunately for them, Our Beloved Leader Alex Salmond does not take criticism lightly. Or at all. So in a move that is blatantly obvious to everyone in Scotland, he has thrown his rattle out of the pram and dealt a blow to Scottish sport.
Sadly, I think we will only see more of this. The first year of the SNP Government has been fine for them - short term populist policies, a disorganised opposition and the welcome realisation that actually they wouldn't automatically destroy the country. However, the pressure is going to start improving now as the public start to realise that when the SNP make a promise it's not worth the paper it's printed on. Salmond is the most impressive figure in Scottish politics just now, but he can't cope with anyone disagreeing with his divine mandate - indeed, that smug smirk that we have all missed is making an irritating comeback. But more importantly for the SNP, their talent pool is rather shallow. Stewart Maxwell, the Sports Minister humiliated in this fiasco, is picking up favourite status as to who will be the first Minister to be sacked/resign, Kenny MacAskill is obsessed with picking fights rather than doing his job and the back benches of the SNP posse in the Parliament are quite frankly terrifying.
The opportunity is there for Labour to start working hard and pulling apart the stitches of the SNP group. The discipline that the SNP have exerted thus far has been surprisingly efficient (although checking out their online contributions demonstrates some of the worrying group-think that is becoming prevalent) but the cracks are already there to see. It is our job to open them up.
Salmond has had a good first year, but now the real work starts. Welcome to Government Eck, it's going to be a bumpy ride.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Louis Theroux - Behind Bars
I had taped Louis Theroux's latest documentary "Behind Bars" at the weekend, and got round to watching it. It was a programme about him going to San Quentin prison in California for two weeks to explore the lives of the inmates and the effect that their imprisonment has on them.
It was horrifying.
The prison is a sprawling city of wasted humanity. Ruled by racially divided gangs, it is rife with drugs and violence and filled with repeat offenders and extremely dangerous people. One man who Louis interviewed is currently serving a sentence of something like 521 years - when he completes this, he has 11 life sentences to serve. Others are repeat offenders, who have been in and out of the 'justice' system their entire lives, and will continue to return until they are dead. The gangs possess huge power, as they provide an illusionary safe haven to inmates of the same skin colour. Some of the inmates are kept in their cells for 23 hours a day, isolated from other prisoners and from most human contact.
It's a depressing journey, and one that is all too common in America's failed justice system. However, it is a danger that looms for us on the horizon. Our imprisonment rates are awful, and the constant posturing for which party can use the toughest language serves only to drive the rate up further. Repeat offending is not just the norm, it is expected and so we create a sub-population who are detached from society and function solely through crime and imprisonment, with damaging ramifications for the wider society that they are excluded from.
Our prisons are becoming dumping grounds. Rehabilitation is fast becoming a legend and as a country we have disposed of the idea that completing a sentence meant that the punishment had been completed and the individual could re-enter society. Now, a criminal record punishes you for longer than the period of imprisonment does - unless you are convicted of a white collar financial crime or an ex-Tory minister, you will struggle to leave prison and earn a living in a legitimate manner.
We imprison people for not paying fines - the tax payer pays a huge amount more to keep them locked up than they ever owed. We take first time offenders and lock them in environments where they are surrounded by experienced criminals - a perfect training and recruiment ground if you like. We are surprised when we hear that our prisons are becoming prime recruting offices for young men into Islamic extremist groups.
It is widely agreed that the key factors which stop reoffending are a home, stable relationship and employment. Even a short term in prison can easily destroy all three and make them virtually impossible to replace. We need to work out what we want our prisons and punishments to be for.
I would suggest looking at crimes in three ways. I am not a lawyer, so these may be very simplistic, but I think they would at least highlight the role that punishments can play.
Firstly, there are the crimes which are serious and for which imprisonment is the punishment. Serious robberies, assaults etc, for which the loss of liberty is considered an appropriate way for society to punish the offenders. These obviously would have various terms according to the crime, which the prisoner would be expected to complete. Time in prison could be used profitably, training the inmate with appropriate and beneficial skills and preparing them for a successful return to society upon conclusion of their sentence. When they were released, they would be supported in finding new work and housing and in readjusting to life outside prison - it is amazing how powerful instituionalisation can be in harming ex-prisoner's chances of staying out of prison. However, alongside this support would come an acknowledgement that they have served their time. Employers who were willing to employ ex-prisoners with appropriate skills could be rewarded, as the costs of a tax break or the like would be much lower than the costs of re-imprisonment.
The second category comprises prisoners whose crimes are reflective of an ongoing danger to society - sexual offenders against adults and/or children, serious violence etc. In these cases, imprisonment is not just a punishment but is also a method of protecting society. These are challenging cases as they raise the question of how long someone should serve. A paedophile who is imprisoned for a couple of years but is going to be a danger to society should not be released whilst this danger exists. Obviously I realise that this raises ethical dilemmas - can we imprison people for crimes they have yet to commit, and if paedophilia is a life long disorder could those imprisoned for it ever be released? Crimes and disorders of this nature require a review of the procedures we have in place for protecting society and doing what we can to ensure that the offenders are supported in not re-offending. It is an area that requires urgent research and debate.
The other category are the people who are imprisoned for 'minor' crimes. This isn't to imply that these crimes are not wrong or don't have consequences, but rather it is a reflection in my opinion that they do not warrant a punishment of imprisonment. Rather the punishments should be ones which actually contribute to the society and/or individuals whom they have hurt by their actions. This isn't to make community service some sort of cop-out or easy way to avoid prison. Rather, these sorts of punishments should be related to the crime and actively produce results which are beneficial to the community. Punishing offenders in this way would allow them to make a positive contribution but also hopefully allow them to retain those factors which I identified earlier as being crucial to avoiding recidivism.
I am not trying to be a wild-eyed bleeding heart liberal here - prisons have a valuable function in our society and we must make sure that they are supported and developed. However, they are too full already, and continuing to get fuller - we need to change this for the good of our society. The US has over two million people incarcerated and demonstrate that this policy fails. We need to be radical and find a new direction.
Incidentally, if you would like to watch Louis' documentary you can find it at http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/ - if you go to the last seven days, it is on page two of Sunday evening.
It was horrifying.
The prison is a sprawling city of wasted humanity. Ruled by racially divided gangs, it is rife with drugs and violence and filled with repeat offenders and extremely dangerous people. One man who Louis interviewed is currently serving a sentence of something like 521 years - when he completes this, he has 11 life sentences to serve. Others are repeat offenders, who have been in and out of the 'justice' system their entire lives, and will continue to return until they are dead. The gangs possess huge power, as they provide an illusionary safe haven to inmates of the same skin colour. Some of the inmates are kept in their cells for 23 hours a day, isolated from other prisoners and from most human contact.
It's a depressing journey, and one that is all too common in America's failed justice system. However, it is a danger that looms for us on the horizon. Our imprisonment rates are awful, and the constant posturing for which party can use the toughest language serves only to drive the rate up further. Repeat offending is not just the norm, it is expected and so we create a sub-population who are detached from society and function solely through crime and imprisonment, with damaging ramifications for the wider society that they are excluded from.
Our prisons are becoming dumping grounds. Rehabilitation is fast becoming a legend and as a country we have disposed of the idea that completing a sentence meant that the punishment had been completed and the individual could re-enter society. Now, a criminal record punishes you for longer than the period of imprisonment does - unless you are convicted of a white collar financial crime or an ex-Tory minister, you will struggle to leave prison and earn a living in a legitimate manner.
We imprison people for not paying fines - the tax payer pays a huge amount more to keep them locked up than they ever owed. We take first time offenders and lock them in environments where they are surrounded by experienced criminals - a perfect training and recruiment ground if you like. We are surprised when we hear that our prisons are becoming prime recruting offices for young men into Islamic extremist groups.
It is widely agreed that the key factors which stop reoffending are a home, stable relationship and employment. Even a short term in prison can easily destroy all three and make them virtually impossible to replace. We need to work out what we want our prisons and punishments to be for.
I would suggest looking at crimes in three ways. I am not a lawyer, so these may be very simplistic, but I think they would at least highlight the role that punishments can play.
Firstly, there are the crimes which are serious and for which imprisonment is the punishment. Serious robberies, assaults etc, for which the loss of liberty is considered an appropriate way for society to punish the offenders. These obviously would have various terms according to the crime, which the prisoner would be expected to complete. Time in prison could be used profitably, training the inmate with appropriate and beneficial skills and preparing them for a successful return to society upon conclusion of their sentence. When they were released, they would be supported in finding new work and housing and in readjusting to life outside prison - it is amazing how powerful instituionalisation can be in harming ex-prisoner's chances of staying out of prison. However, alongside this support would come an acknowledgement that they have served their time. Employers who were willing to employ ex-prisoners with appropriate skills could be rewarded, as the costs of a tax break or the like would be much lower than the costs of re-imprisonment.
The second category comprises prisoners whose crimes are reflective of an ongoing danger to society - sexual offenders against adults and/or children, serious violence etc. In these cases, imprisonment is not just a punishment but is also a method of protecting society. These are challenging cases as they raise the question of how long someone should serve. A paedophile who is imprisoned for a couple of years but is going to be a danger to society should not be released whilst this danger exists. Obviously I realise that this raises ethical dilemmas - can we imprison people for crimes they have yet to commit, and if paedophilia is a life long disorder could those imprisoned for it ever be released? Crimes and disorders of this nature require a review of the procedures we have in place for protecting society and doing what we can to ensure that the offenders are supported in not re-offending. It is an area that requires urgent research and debate.
The other category are the people who are imprisoned for 'minor' crimes. This isn't to imply that these crimes are not wrong or don't have consequences, but rather it is a reflection in my opinion that they do not warrant a punishment of imprisonment. Rather the punishments should be ones which actually contribute to the society and/or individuals whom they have hurt by their actions. This isn't to make community service some sort of cop-out or easy way to avoid prison. Rather, these sorts of punishments should be related to the crime and actively produce results which are beneficial to the community. Punishing offenders in this way would allow them to make a positive contribution but also hopefully allow them to retain those factors which I identified earlier as being crucial to avoiding recidivism.
I am not trying to be a wild-eyed bleeding heart liberal here - prisons have a valuable function in our society and we must make sure that they are supported and developed. However, they are too full already, and continuing to get fuller - we need to change this for the good of our society. The US has over two million people incarcerated and demonstrate that this policy fails. We need to be radical and find a new direction.
Incidentally, if you would like to watch Louis' documentary you can find it at http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/ - if you go to the last seven days, it is on page two of Sunday evening.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Bobbies on the beat cut crime - well duh!
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestnews/Bobbies-on-the-beat-DO.3667986.jp
I know, it seems a very self obvious title for this, but the fact is that the Scotman's report today appears to be a surprise to some.
Law and order is a topic that is causing the public distress - admittedly it is often non based on anything approaching reality and is then exaggerated by the media, but it is still a concern. The evidence with the increase in patrolling police officers in Glasgow and Edinburgh is very strong that this helps to reduce crime.
There needs to be an increase in the visibility of the police and in their connection to the community. Too often they are seen today as being detatched from the society and communities that they serve, instead being observed as merely enforcers of the state's laws - or even more relevantly, to not be seen to be enforcing anything at all. Increasing police presence in a positive consistent manner would strengthen bonds, as opposed to the regular absence, followed by a deluge in reaction to particular incidents.
Proaction rather than reaction - that is a key strand of progressive thought. With the SNP having mucked up the policing issue in Scotland, this is a key chance for Labour to regain the iniative. The false guarantee of numbers sounds good to the electorate but doesn't help the country. What we need is a commitment to changing the approach of policing, using the police's own professionalism to guide changes so that they are introduced with their support and advice rather than contrary to it. This would allow us to create a strong image in Scotland.
Of course, we'll struggle with it in the rest of the UK if we don't backdate the pay officers! But a combination of backdating and dialogue would demonstrate to the Force that it is vital and help to restore its place as a key aspect of society.
I know, it seems a very self obvious title for this, but the fact is that the Scotman's report today appears to be a surprise to some.
Law and order is a topic that is causing the public distress - admittedly it is often non based on anything approaching reality and is then exaggerated by the media, but it is still a concern. The evidence with the increase in patrolling police officers in Glasgow and Edinburgh is very strong that this helps to reduce crime.
There needs to be an increase in the visibility of the police and in their connection to the community. Too often they are seen today as being detatched from the society and communities that they serve, instead being observed as merely enforcers of the state's laws - or even more relevantly, to not be seen to be enforcing anything at all. Increasing police presence in a positive consistent manner would strengthen bonds, as opposed to the regular absence, followed by a deluge in reaction to particular incidents.
Proaction rather than reaction - that is a key strand of progressive thought. With the SNP having mucked up the policing issue in Scotland, this is a key chance for Labour to regain the iniative. The false guarantee of numbers sounds good to the electorate but doesn't help the country. What we need is a commitment to changing the approach of policing, using the police's own professionalism to guide changes so that they are introduced with their support and advice rather than contrary to it. This would allow us to create a strong image in Scotland.
Of course, we'll struggle with it in the rest of the UK if we don't backdate the pay officers! But a combination of backdating and dialogue would demonstrate to the Force that it is vital and help to restore its place as a key aspect of society.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Nuclear Power
I am pleased that the Government is supporting a new generation of nuclear reactors for the UK. I realise that this is an opinion that is not universally held, to say the least, but I believe that in light of the challenges that we are going to face in regards to energy in the coming years, alongside our commitments to reducing our reliance on fossil fuels, nuclear is the option which presents us with the best chance of success, certainly when combined with other forms of energy production.
Nuclear power is an issue that raises very strong gut reactions in people, both positively and negatively. The implications of Chernobyl had a lasting impact on public opinion, and combined with the low price of oil and gas conspired to push nuclear power out of the scene. Even as recently as 2004, Tony Blair's review found that although they wouldn't rule out nuclear power for ever, it certainly wasn't being considered at that point, which caused some environmental groups to happily proclaim the death of nuclear.
Of course, while they were proclaiming its death, nuclear power was continuing to be used as an environmentally friendly power source elsewhere in the world, and indeed was continuing to contribute 20% of the power in the UK. Huge advances have been made in the safety of modern reactors so that an incident such as Chernobyl is learnt from and avoided. At the time of Chernobyl, the reactors had to be constantly monitored or they would overheat and cause problems - the modern reactors have to be constantly interacted with or they switch themselves off - a change in how the industry approaches the issue of safety.
Of course, the issue of waste is one of the most emotive, due to the length of time that it lasts for. However, the production of energy from coal produces huge amounts of heavy metals to be disposed of, along with the release of CO2 and SO2 into the atmosphere. In Switzerland, a country where over 40% of the national energy is produced from nuclear plants, 40 times as much toxic waste is produced by the fossil fuel sources as by the nuclear industry, all of which must be disposed of and which has seriously damaging effects on the environment.
Criticism is made of the huge cost of nuclear power, but in fact the cost is deceptive. It is true that the industry has large capital costs which dwarf those of other power production sources. However, the running costs of a plant are much smaller than other sources. Even factoring in the mining of uranium, the CO2 production from nuclear power is virtually non-existent, and we would see a large improvement in our emissions were we to increase the percentage of our power that we supplied in this manner.
The fashionable renewable sources (wind, solar, tide) all represent useful complementary forms of energy production, and combined with nuclear will allow us to move away from a dependency on fossil fuels, which in turn will reduce our vulnerability to pressure from foreign countries such as Russia over gas prices. However, the renewables are not going to be able to provide all of the energy that we require. Solar power is limited to the daylight (and living in Scotland we will run out very quickly if we only relied upon it!) and we have all witnessed the furore that the creation of wind farms can create. I think that the Government is to be commended for pursuing a multifaceted energy policy which involves different means of production.
Of course, this foresight doesn't extend to the SNP administration here in Scotland, who have refused to have any new plants built north of the border. This has serious economical implications for the communities in Scotland who are based around, and rely upon for jobs, the existing power plants. It also reflects the SNP's naive and potentially dangerous reliance upon oil in the North Sea. All of their financial justifications for independence are based upon a finite and heavily polluting resource. This worries me about the future of energy production in Scotland, should they somehow get their wish to destroy the UK. Admittedly Salmond produces enough hot air to power all of Scotland's cities, but I would be worried if that become the basis of our future energy security.
What do other people think about the nuclear decision? Are you pleased with it? If not, what are your objections and how would you suggest Britain can meet its energy needs in future?
Nuclear power is an issue that raises very strong gut reactions in people, both positively and negatively. The implications of Chernobyl had a lasting impact on public opinion, and combined with the low price of oil and gas conspired to push nuclear power out of the scene. Even as recently as 2004, Tony Blair's review found that although they wouldn't rule out nuclear power for ever, it certainly wasn't being considered at that point, which caused some environmental groups to happily proclaim the death of nuclear.
Of course, while they were proclaiming its death, nuclear power was continuing to be used as an environmentally friendly power source elsewhere in the world, and indeed was continuing to contribute 20% of the power in the UK. Huge advances have been made in the safety of modern reactors so that an incident such as Chernobyl is learnt from and avoided. At the time of Chernobyl, the reactors had to be constantly monitored or they would overheat and cause problems - the modern reactors have to be constantly interacted with or they switch themselves off - a change in how the industry approaches the issue of safety.
Of course, the issue of waste is one of the most emotive, due to the length of time that it lasts for. However, the production of energy from coal produces huge amounts of heavy metals to be disposed of, along with the release of CO2 and SO2 into the atmosphere. In Switzerland, a country where over 40% of the national energy is produced from nuclear plants, 40 times as much toxic waste is produced by the fossil fuel sources as by the nuclear industry, all of which must be disposed of and which has seriously damaging effects on the environment.
Criticism is made of the huge cost of nuclear power, but in fact the cost is deceptive. It is true that the industry has large capital costs which dwarf those of other power production sources. However, the running costs of a plant are much smaller than other sources. Even factoring in the mining of uranium, the CO2 production from nuclear power is virtually non-existent, and we would see a large improvement in our emissions were we to increase the percentage of our power that we supplied in this manner.
The fashionable renewable sources (wind, solar, tide) all represent useful complementary forms of energy production, and combined with nuclear will allow us to move away from a dependency on fossil fuels, which in turn will reduce our vulnerability to pressure from foreign countries such as Russia over gas prices. However, the renewables are not going to be able to provide all of the energy that we require. Solar power is limited to the daylight (and living in Scotland we will run out very quickly if we only relied upon it!) and we have all witnessed the furore that the creation of wind farms can create. I think that the Government is to be commended for pursuing a multifaceted energy policy which involves different means of production.
Of course, this foresight doesn't extend to the SNP administration here in Scotland, who have refused to have any new plants built north of the border. This has serious economical implications for the communities in Scotland who are based around, and rely upon for jobs, the existing power plants. It also reflects the SNP's naive and potentially dangerous reliance upon oil in the North Sea. All of their financial justifications for independence are based upon a finite and heavily polluting resource. This worries me about the future of energy production in Scotland, should they somehow get their wish to destroy the UK. Admittedly Salmond produces enough hot air to power all of Scotland's cities, but I would be worried if that become the basis of our future energy security.
What do other people think about the nuclear decision? Are you pleased with it? If not, what are your objections and how would you suggest Britain can meet its energy needs in future?
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Age
I was reading an interesting post on the Newsnight site about the role of age in politics. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2008/01/a_question_of_age_1.html) It points out that the consideration of John McCain as a viable candidate for the US Presidency is something that would not be replicated in the UK, with the current obsession with 'yoof.'
It got me thinking. It is daft that older members of society feel excluded from contributing to our politics. Ming Campbell shouldn't have been forced out of his position due to his age - our politicians and leaders should be elected on the basis of their competency and ideas rather than how long they have been around.
However, whilst older members of society should be encouraged to contribute, so should younger members. The article discusses the fact that the party leaders are all young, and comments underneath bemoan the fact that young people are getting into positions of authority when they have no life experience.
Firstly, I'm 26 and I can tell you that 40+ is not young! Heck, to someone in their teens I'm an old fogey! Secondly, to have a representative democracy, we require elected members of all strands of our community - young, old, white, black, male and female. In my work, I talk to young people who are not involved in politics, and am frequently told that they are not interested because it is something for old people. Looking at the make-up of our elected representatives, there are very few younger people able to represent that age group and able to bring their concerns to the attention of the elected bodies.
All our citizens should be free and encouraged to participate. We should not presume that older age guarantees experience, whilst being young precludes it. Everyone has skills and experiences to contribute, and should be encouraged in this. Likewise, it shouldn't be presumed that older people lack an energy and commitment to do the job they are elected for.
To create a vibrant democracy, we require the participation of all its members. Young, old and middle-aged, we all have something to offer.
It got me thinking. It is daft that older members of society feel excluded from contributing to our politics. Ming Campbell shouldn't have been forced out of his position due to his age - our politicians and leaders should be elected on the basis of their competency and ideas rather than how long they have been around.
However, whilst older members of society should be encouraged to contribute, so should younger members. The article discusses the fact that the party leaders are all young, and comments underneath bemoan the fact that young people are getting into positions of authority when they have no life experience.
Firstly, I'm 26 and I can tell you that 40+ is not young! Heck, to someone in their teens I'm an old fogey! Secondly, to have a representative democracy, we require elected members of all strands of our community - young, old, white, black, male and female. In my work, I talk to young people who are not involved in politics, and am frequently told that they are not interested because it is something for old people. Looking at the make-up of our elected representatives, there are very few younger people able to represent that age group and able to bring their concerns to the attention of the elected bodies.
All our citizens should be free and encouraged to participate. We should not presume that older age guarantees experience, whilst being young precludes it. Everyone has skills and experiences to contribute, and should be encouraged in this. Likewise, it shouldn't be presumed that older people lack an energy and commitment to do the job they are elected for.
To create a vibrant democracy, we require the participation of all its members. Young, old and middle-aged, we all have something to offer.
Monday, January 07, 2008
The Obama Effect
The race is on!
I freely admit that I am a geek - let's face it, I'm getting highly excited about an election that I have absolutely no vote in. But I do believe that the election of a US President is an event that impacts upon the entire world.
The key story to come out of Iowa from a Dem p.o.v. was of course the success of Barack Obama in winning the caucus. A great result for him and just reward for the improvement that he has demonstrated in his campaigning over the past few weeks. Crucially, his margin of victory was significantly clear over his rivals, and even more crucially, Hillary Clinton came a very disappointing third, trailing John Edwards by a very narrow margin.
It is certainly a great result for Obama, but I don't think he should be measuring the White House curtains quite yet. Although Iowa gives him momentum (and it is looking like he may well build on this with victory in New Hampshire) there is still a very powerful machine behind Hillary Clinton. I think that it would only take one victory for her, particularly in one of the bigger states, could quickly restore the aura of inevitability that she has worked to hard to build up. I don't think that Edwards has enough to his campaign to seriously challenge for the nod - I personally supported him in 04 and believe he would have won the election had the Dems not stupidly nominated Kerry, however he is not as impressive now as he was then. In addition, the Dems are desperate to avoid any links to that disaster of a campaign - the GOP tore Kerry apart on several issues, and would be delighted if they could just roll out the same old tactics again. Well, actually they will do that regardless of who the candidate is, but it won't necessarily be as effective.
On the GOP side, Mike Huckabee's victory in Iowa is a big blow to Mitt Romney's chances. He did win the Wyoming Republican Primary, but this is a pretty insignificant event (Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter won the remaining delegates which shows you how in touch with national opinion the state is!). For Romney, New Hampshire is crucial now - I think he must win it or run the risk of seeing his campaign die. Giuliani has played a dangerous game of ignoring the early states, so he will came out all guns blazing as the big states come into play, which will further reduce Romney's chances. And of course, polling indicates that McCain has a very real chance of winning NH.
Personally, if I had to support a Republican (with very gritted teeth, naturally!) it would be McCain. I think he is an impressive conviction politician, with a long history of cross party working. Considering how dead in the water his campaign was, his recovery is very impressive - the question now is whether it will be sustainable. So NH is a must win for him too.
So, my predictions for NH - Obama and McCain.
And then the real fun begins.... =)
I freely admit that I am a geek - let's face it, I'm getting highly excited about an election that I have absolutely no vote in. But I do believe that the election of a US President is an event that impacts upon the entire world.
The key story to come out of Iowa from a Dem p.o.v. was of course the success of Barack Obama in winning the caucus. A great result for him and just reward for the improvement that he has demonstrated in his campaigning over the past few weeks. Crucially, his margin of victory was significantly clear over his rivals, and even more crucially, Hillary Clinton came a very disappointing third, trailing John Edwards by a very narrow margin.
It is certainly a great result for Obama, but I don't think he should be measuring the White House curtains quite yet. Although Iowa gives him momentum (and it is looking like he may well build on this with victory in New Hampshire) there is still a very powerful machine behind Hillary Clinton. I think that it would only take one victory for her, particularly in one of the bigger states, could quickly restore the aura of inevitability that she has worked to hard to build up. I don't think that Edwards has enough to his campaign to seriously challenge for the nod - I personally supported him in 04 and believe he would have won the election had the Dems not stupidly nominated Kerry, however he is not as impressive now as he was then. In addition, the Dems are desperate to avoid any links to that disaster of a campaign - the GOP tore Kerry apart on several issues, and would be delighted if they could just roll out the same old tactics again. Well, actually they will do that regardless of who the candidate is, but it won't necessarily be as effective.
On the GOP side, Mike Huckabee's victory in Iowa is a big blow to Mitt Romney's chances. He did win the Wyoming Republican Primary, but this is a pretty insignificant event (Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter won the remaining delegates which shows you how in touch with national opinion the state is!). For Romney, New Hampshire is crucial now - I think he must win it or run the risk of seeing his campaign die. Giuliani has played a dangerous game of ignoring the early states, so he will came out all guns blazing as the big states come into play, which will further reduce Romney's chances. And of course, polling indicates that McCain has a very real chance of winning NH.
Personally, if I had to support a Republican (with very gritted teeth, naturally!) it would be McCain. I think he is an impressive conviction politician, with a long history of cross party working. Considering how dead in the water his campaign was, his recovery is very impressive - the question now is whether it will be sustainable. So NH is a must win for him too.
So, my predictions for NH - Obama and McCain.
And then the real fun begins.... =)
Happy New Year!
Not sure that anyone actually reads this blog, but if you do - Happy New Year!
I do my main blogging over at the Labour MpURL facility, but will start trying to put more regular thoughts up here. Of course, these ill informed ramblings will probably just be drifting off unheeded into the ether, but at least it floats them out of my head! =)
If you do ever happen to stumble over this page, then feel free to leave me your thoughts, nice nasty or just plain surreal, to convince me that I am not alone.
Blogging - the modern equivalent of talking to yourself and the voices in your head!
I do my main blogging over at the Labour MpURL facility, but will start trying to put more regular thoughts up here. Of course, these ill informed ramblings will probably just be drifting off unheeded into the ether, but at least it floats them out of my head! =)
If you do ever happen to stumble over this page, then feel free to leave me your thoughts, nice nasty or just plain surreal, to convince me that I am not alone.
Blogging - the modern equivalent of talking to yourself and the voices in your head!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)